A19563:1828
An answerAn aunsvvere
An answer by the Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitan, unto a crafty and sophistical cavillation, devised by Stephen Gardiner Doctor of Law, late Bishop of Winchester against the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and blood of our saviour Jesus Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serveth, answered such places of the book of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seem any thing worthy the answering. Here is also the true copy of the book written, and in open court delivered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...An aunsvvere by the Reuerend Father in God Thomas Archbyshop of Canterbury, primate of all England and metropolitane, vnto a craftie and sophisticall cauillation, deuised by Stephen Gardiner Doctour of Law, late Byshop of Winchester agaynst the true and godly doctrine of the most holy sacrament, of the body and bloud of our sauiour Iesu Christ Wherein is also, as occasion serueth, aunswered such places of the booke of Doct. Richard Smith, as may seeme any thyng worthy the aunsweryng. Here is also the true copy of the booke written, and in open court deliuered, by D. Stephen Gardiner ...
London: printed by John Daye, 1580London: printed by Iohn Daye, 1580
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But of annihilation you write so strangely,1 that it seemeth you have written what you dreamed in your sleep, rather then what you learned of any author catholic or infidel. For who ever heard that annihilation could be wrought but by the only power of God? For the gentle philosophers write according to the nature, that Sicut exnihilo nihil sit, Ita nihil in nihilum redigitur. As nothing can be made of nought, so nothing can be turned into nought: So that as it is the work of God only, to make of nought, so it can be but only his work also, to turn things into nought. And what man being never so rude or popular, having any discretion at all, would define annihilation (as you do) that a defection of a creature from God, should be annihilation and turning into nothing? For so should all the angels that fell from God be annihilate, and so should likewise all apostates, and all other that by sin relinquish the army of God, and follow his adversary the devil,2 and all Papists, that abandoning Christ (as Judas did) run to Antichrist, to whom it were better to be annihilate, or never to be borne, then eternally to remain in gods indignation. Now followeth the last reason.
But of adnihilation you write so strangely,1 that it seemeth you haue written what you dreamed in your slepe, rather then what you learned of any author catholike or infidele. For who euer heard that adnihilation could be wrought but by the onely power of God? For the gentill philosophers write according to the nature, that Sicut exnihilo nihil sit, Ita nihil in nihilum redigitur. Asnothing can be made of nought, so nothing can be tourned into nought: So that as it is the worke of God onely, to make of nought, so it can be but onely his worke also, to turne thinges into nought. And what man beeing neuer so rude or popular, hauing any discretion at all, would define adnihilation (as you do) that a defection of a creature from God, should be adnihilatiō and tourning into nothing? For so should all the angels that fell from God be adnihilate, and so should likewise all apostatase, and all other that by sinne relinquishe the army of God, and follow his aduersary the deuill,2